[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by joooiiiiii

As an LEO, I agree with this assessment. Things are not always black and white when it comes to any given situation on the street. Racist? Probably. Wrong procedure? Yes. Murder charge? Most likely not.

However, I'll probably get flak for this, I don't agree with the systemic racism statement. I do believe there is systemic racism.

There is approximately 12,300 local police departments alone (Hyland, 2019). I understand that in our very own departments that we may work in or work with, we might not see it outright, but just imagine places in the middle of nowhere with Officers or Deputies who make up that department/office into something that could very well be perpetuating it. Who is to say the Feds are going to be able to conduct investigations and/or put Federal oversight on thousands of departments around the States?

I have worked with colleagues who have put in most of their life in LE and probably won't admit that their views on criminality and criminal justice might be slightly skewed or biased. When you perform, see and react to the same things on the job for a long time, it can have an affect on your view on things--good and bad.

My assessment is that George Floyd is a wake-up call. The majority of society would like to see some type of reform or change, but that doesn't mean there is an easy solution to it nor does it mean everyone wants the same type of reform or change. The outcry for police reform goes well beyond just law enforcement reform because the entire system (social work, mental health, income/wealth disparity, education, etc.) needs to be addressed. I obviously don't have all the answers to any of that, but I do know there is a lot of work that needs to be done and the Floyd death is the straw that broke the camels back for the ethnic community.


Hyland, S. S. (2019, October 25). Local police departments PERSONNEL, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2021, from https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6706

You make valid points, most of which I agree with. My systemic racism statement wasn't meant to imply it doesn't exist, but rather, every single account is not racist on its face. The ethnic community and their peripheral virtue signalers use race 100% of the time to explain/justify/exploit/make excuses for 100% of the circumstances. It lessens the effect when everything is racist and nothing is personal accountability.

My mother raised me to man-up when I fuck(ed) up and not blame my race for my bad decision making. Additionally, my mother never raised me nor my siblings to use our race as a crutch ....as a reason why we couldn't achieve something. Victimization was not a thing in our household despite starting life in LA's gang infested neighborhoods.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

Well we could call them the 'army' or 'navy', but having a union would still under mind the chain of command needed for the armed forces.
Sure there is more to it, but the article is much better than citing 'defund' shows on TV! You could search for that Texas lawyer guy....
Many NYC cops want to work in Suffolk because of the... high pay! What this means for, say, teacher pay is any one's guess.

Murf

I don't blame NYC officers for seeking better pay. With a cost of living that rivals or exceeds that of California, NYC officers make half of what we make here. I would be seeking better pay too......especially if I'm putting my life on the line or being hamstrung by my department (...and being forced to allow citizens to toss water balloons at me, among other things; that crap wouldn't fly here in California.).

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I don't blame NYC officers for seeking better pay. With a cost of living that rivals or exceeds that of California, NYC officers make half of what we make here. I would be seeking better pay too......especially if I'm putting my life on the line or being hamstrung by my department (...and being forced to allow citizens to toss water balloons at me, among other things; that crap wouldn't fly here in California.).

I think you ducked the hard part. We all want better pay, that's easy.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

I think you ducked the hard part. We all want better pay, that's easy.

I don't know that a union would be the best utilized practice in the armed forces. Too much opsec, not enough transparency, yada yada.

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I don't know that a union would be the best utilized practice in the armed forces. Too much opsec, not enough transparency, yada yada.

Hey, my wife is better at avoidance than you are!!

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

Hey, my wife is better at avoidance than you are!!

What is the question you want answered?!! You presented the military as a talking point on why unions aren't needed and I responded regarding why the military is not a sufficient use case. You brought up bankrupting cities and I addressed that too. The Texas lawyer thing doesn't speak for unions as a whole.

[Littlebear]

The roots of modern police union power:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/10/u...sultPosition=2

[premier3is]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I've helped out a couple of people on the forum in the past. In one instance I knew the officer and "phoned in a friend" for the Bimmerpost member.

I'll keep this in mind my friend lol

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

The roots of modern police union power:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/10/u...sultPosition=2

This was a good read, but I stand by my original statements. This particular statement stands out....

"Years ago, officers there locked in some of the most highly coveted perks and protections of any department in the country: rules that helped shield officers from discipline; fat pensions, Cadillac health insurance plans, even taxpayer-funded payments for divorce lawyers. Their success became a case study for unions nationwide...."

Let's unpack this.

Fat pensions?!? Uhhhh negative ghost rider. While we are solvent, pensions for anybody hired within the last 15 years is anything but fat....AND....you have to put in 35 years to get the best percentages. This was what I was referring to when I mentioned 60+ year old patrol deputies. I have partners on the line right now who shouldn't be, but they are because their pension percentage will suck if they don't keep working. The majority of the beneficial retirement percentage(s) is/are earned the last 5 years of service.

Cadillac health insurance plans?!?! Negative again. While our plans are good, they aren't lavish examples. They aren't any better than the plans offered to nurses or teachers. I would bet some private corporation plans are equal or better than anything we get offered (....based on comparisons made to coverages during my private sector time). Where our plans do shine is after 25 years of service. After 25 years, medical insurance becomes free if you retire at that point, but it no longer includes coverage for spouses and children (....and it no longer transfers in the event of death; it used to!). It only offers coverage for the officer. They've taken quite a bit away. It used to cover the family. Most departments don't even offer the "free at 25 years" benefit anymore. My department is one of the last of the agencies that still offers it, but again, it only covers me now based on my safety plan.

Lastly, the divorce lawyer issue. I'm not sure how that was even factored in because we don't have any benefit like that here.

[Murf993]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

This was a good read, but I stand by my original statements. This particular statement stands out....

"Years ago, officers there locked in some of the most highly coveted perks and protections of any department in the country: rules that helped shield officers from discipline; fat pensions, Cadillac health insurance plans, even taxpayer-funded payments for divorce lawyers. Their success became a case study for unions nationwide...."

Let's unpack this.

Fat pensions?!? Uhhhh negative ghost rider. While we are solvent, pensions for anybody hired within the last 15 years is anything but fat....AND....you have to put in 35 years to get the best percentages. This was what I was referring to when I mentioned 60+ year old patrol deputies. I have partners on the line right now who shouldn't be, but they are because their pension percentage will suck if they don't keep working. The majority of the beneficial retirement percentage(s) is/are earned the last 5 years of service.

Cadillac health insurance plans?!?! Negative again. While our plans are good, they aren't lavish examples. They aren't any better than the plans offered to nurses or teachers. I would bet some private corporation plans are equal or better than anything we get offered (....based on comparisons made to coverages during my private sector time). Where our plans do shine is after 25 years of service. After 25 years, medical insurance becomes free if you retire at that point, but it no longer includes coverage for spouses and children (....and it no longer transfers in the event of death; it used to!). It only offers coverage for the officer. They've taken quite a bit away. It used to cover the family. Most departments don't even offer the "free at 25 years" benefit anymore. My department is one of the last of the agencies that still offers it, but again, it only covers me now based on my safety plan.

Lastly, the divorce lawyer issue. I'm not sure how that was even factored in because we don't have any benefit like that here.

I'll comment here, may or may not be relevant to the US but here goes. We don't have police unions in Canada although the media loves to say we do. We are not permitted to unionize by law, we have associations and the distinction is slight. We can not strike. The association bargains on our behalf. We pay dues, and they are high. We get decent benefits, and a decent pension but the thing that really matters is protection against prosecution. Not unlike the US when we are involved in a Use of Force, we are scrutinized. There are 14 levels of investigation and scrutiny, without the protection of the association an officer could be crippled financially defending himself or herself. The vast majority of the time an officer is investigated he get's cleared but often charged criminally. The feeling is, and since I've been involved in the investigative side of Use of Force deaths I can say this with authority, officers get charged all the time when its clear there isn't enough evidence to convict but from a political position it's preferable to have a criminal trial and an acquittal than just clearing the officer. It is not unusual for the association to spend over $100K to defend the officer.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Murf993

I'll comment here, may or may not be relevant to the US but here goes. We don't have police unions in Canada although the media loves to say we do. We are not permitted to unionize by law, we have associations and the distinction is slight. We can not strike. The association bargains on our behalf. We pay dues, and they are high. We get decent benefits, and a decent pension but the thing that really matters is protection against prosecution. Not unlike the US when we are involved in a Use of Force, we are scrutinized. There are 14 levels of investigation and scrutiny, without the protection of the association an officer could be crippled financially defending himself or herself. The vast majority of the time an officer is investigated he get's cleared but often charged criminally. The feeling is, and since I've been involved in the investigative side of Use of Force deaths I can say this with authority, officers get charged all the time when its clear there isn't enough evidence to convict but from a political position it's preferable to have a criminal trial and an acquittal than just clearing the officer. It is not unusual for the association to spend over $100K to defend the officer.

Well stated.

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

This was a good read, but I stand by my original statements. This particular statement stands out....

"Years ago, officers there locked in some of the most highly coveted perks and protections of any department in the country: rules that helped shield officers from discipline; fat pensions, Cadillac health insurance plans, even taxpayer-funded payments for divorce lawyers. Their success became a case study for unions nationwide...."

Let's unpack this.

Fat pensions?!? ....

Cadillac health insurance plans?!?! Negative again. While our plans are good, they aren't lavish examples. They aren't any better than the plans offered to nurses or teachers. ....
Lastly, the divorce lawyer issue. I'm not sure how that was even factored in because we don't have any benefit like that here.

I'm not surprised you two can find argument with the articles. You folks live this life in your time & space, while good journalism will examine the problem over a greater time & space.
We should admit to excesses on both sides, & seek solutions with good investigations. Police should be part of their community, including in pay scale so as to not bankrupt the community. Comparing cops to teachers & nurses, in pay & duty, especially after what we have seen in the pandemic, does not seem out of bounds.
And we sure complain about teacher pay & unions....

Murf

[Murf993]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

I'm not surprised you two can find argument with the articles. You folks live this life in your time & space, while good journalism will examine the problem over a greater time & space.
We should admit to excesses on both sides, & seek solutions with good investigations. Police should be part of their community, including in pay scale so as to not bankrupt the community. Comparing cops to teachers & nurses, in pay & duty, especially after what we have seen in the pandemic, does not seem out of bounds.
And we sure complain about teacher pay & unions....

Murf

So the article is interesting, and not really surprising. Everything in it can be applied to just about any union or political situation really. The negotiation tactics are used by teachers, public transit, and just about any public service union for that matter. Some of the tactics are used by media and politicians to discredit opponents, so I'm not sure why it's a surprise or shocking that the police employ the same tactics. The article also shows that a lot of positives have come from these tactics, better training etc. I don't agree with some of the over the top tactics, (rats in easter baskets) and frankly when the union has a positive working relationship with the employer things are always better. But the employer owns half the relationship, so it it's a battle both sides have responsibility. Let's not forget the union isn't there to fight for the citizens but it's members. That goes for every union, not just police unions.

[mahalom3]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

This was a good read, but I stand by my original statements. This particular statement stands out....

"Years ago, officers there locked in some of the most highly coveted perks and protections of any department in the country: rules that helped shield officers from discipline; fat pensions, Cadillac health insurance plans, even taxpayer-funded payments for divorce lawyers. Their success became a case study for unions nationwide...."

Let's unpack this.

Fat pensions?!? Uhhhh negative ghost rider. While we are solvent, pensions for anybody hired within the last 15 years is anything but fat....AND....you have to put in 35 years to get the best percentages. This was what I was referring to when I mentioned 60+ year old patrol deputies. I have partners on the line right now who shouldn't be, but they are because their pension percentage will suck if they don't keep working. The majority of the beneficial retirement percentage(s) is/are earned the last 5 years of service.

Cadillac health insurance plans?!?! Negative again. While our plans are good, they aren't lavish examples. They aren't any better than the plans offered to nurses or teachers. I would bet some private corporation plans are equal or better than anything we get offered (....based on comparisons made to coverages during my private sector time). Where our plans do shine is after 25 years of service. After 25 years, medical insurance becomes free if you retire at that point, but it no longer includes coverage for spouses and children (....and it no longer transfers in the event of death; it used to!). It only offers coverage for the officer. They've taken quite a bit away. It used to cover the family. Most departments don't even offer the "free at 25 years" benefit anymore. My department is one of the last of the agencies that still offers it, but again, it only covers me now based on my safety plan.

Lastly, the divorce lawyer issue. I'm not sure how that was even factored in because we don't have any benefit like that here.

Well stated!! Yes the divorce lawyer issue. I also agree with you on your department being the last agencies that still offers life time medical. Ontario PD and Murrieta PD once offered life time medical. My department does not offer life time medical and that is one reason you need to have a 457 or 401K to help pay for your medical once you retire. I'm at 3@50 so you need to have at least 25 years to get 80 percent of your pension based on your last highest gross income. I agree I wouldn't wanna be a cop in New York either.

[Maynard]

In a desperate effort to drag this back from the tedious political edge -
do you ever pull over those huge party limos, and care to share any fun stories about it?

[Murf993]

Originally Posted by Maynard

In a desperate effort to drag this back from the tedious political edge -
do you ever pull over those huge party limos, and care to share any fun stories about it?

When I was working in the Entertainment District in Toronto we towed a limo one night, the guy who had been driving it parked it a a hydrant, as his Stripper client was dropped off at her job and he went for a coffee while he was waiting for her....she was some kind of feature so they were doing a circuit of clubs and parties. There was a tiger in the car, hers, and we didn't realize it until the car got to the impound.

[Buug959]

Originally Posted by Murf993

When I was working in the Entertainment District in Toronto we towed a limo one night, the guy who had been driving it parked it a a hydrant, as his Stripper client was dropped off at her job and he went for a coffee while he was waiting for her....she was some kind of feature so they were doing a circuit of clubs and parties. There was a tiger in the car, hers, and we didn't realize it until the car got to the impound.

Did you tell animal control it was a tiger or just that you had an animal for them to pick up and then stand back for the reaction? I know what I would have done.

[Murf993]

Originally Posted by LemansE90335xi

Did you tell animal control it was a tiger or just that you had an animal for them to pick up and then stand back for the reaction? I know what I would have done.

If I recall we got a radio call as the driver had called police in a panic when he realized the car was towed. We met him at the yard and kept animal control out of it. The windows were tinted so nobody was the wiser and the cat didn't seem to fussed.

[Buug959]

Originally Posted by Murf993

If I recall we got a radio call as the driver had called police in a panic when he realized the car was towed. We met him at the yard and kept animal control out of it. The windows were tinted so nobody was the wiser and the cat didn't seem to fussed.

Oh well, a missed opportunity for a little fun. Too bad but glad the kitty wasn't upset.

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by Maynard

In a desperate effort to drag this back from the tedious political edge....

I'm good. I put up two article for those interested.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

I'm not surprised you two can find argument with the articles. You folks live this life in your time & space, while good journalism will examine the problem over a greater time & space.
We should admit to excesses on both sides, & seek solutions with good investigations. Police should be part of their community, including in pay scale so as to not bankrupt the community. Comparing cops to teachers & nurses, in pay & duty, especially after what we have seen in the pandemic, does not seem out of bounds.
And we sure complain about teacher pay & unions....

Murf

I appreciate your willingness to discuss this, but you aren't listening to/reading what I said. I'm giving you perspective from the front row and you're steady acting like I don't know what I'm talking about.....and your comprehension is lacking. The article from Texas doesn't map it all out in black & white to apply to every union in every state. I articulated WHY that article is incorrect as it applies to my union (...and other unions in my state) and you elided over everything I said.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by mahalom3

Well stated!! Yes the divorce lawyer issue. I also agree with you on your department being the last agencies that still offers life time medical. Ontario PD and Murrieta PD once offered life time medical. My department does not offer life time medical and that is one reason you need to have a 457 or 401K to help pay for your medical once you retire. I'm at 3@50 so you need to have at least 25 years to get 80 percent of your pension based on your last highest gross income. I agree I wouldn't wanna be a cop in New York either.

I tried explaining that to him, but I don't think he understands how crucial that benefit is/was.....and why it's impactful for those that no longer have it. The father of a close friend recently retired from Glendale P.D. as a Sergeant. The medical insurance for him, his wife and one of his four children is through the roof.