On 12/5/14 12:13 PM, Poco Loco wrote:


These days, the cops would shoot you if you had one. They looked too
real.


The cops will shoot you, period.

No sweat, the unions will protect the cops.



Indeed, the police unions exist partially to ensure their members
receive fair due process and a good lawyer if they are accused of a
job-related criminal act.

I do appreciate that right-wing morons like you have problems with that
concept. Tough darts.


--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

On 12/5/14 1:42 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:55:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

Okay, I'll play...for the moment...until you revert back.

Labor unions exist to protect and improve the wages, hours, working
conditions, and medical coverage and retirement options of their
members. They also represent their members in grievances with employers.

If by "bad cops" et cetera, you are referring to union members accused
of serious crimes related to their jobs, then, yes, most unions will
support their members by providing and paying for the services of a
good-quality lawyer to mount a defense on the members' behalf. Doing so
ensures the member has the benefit of due process.

My "side" on this is that it is an important and proper benefit of union
membership.

===

Rightly or wrongly there is a widespread public perception that unions
protect incompetent members.


Weeding out bad cops is the job of police management, not police unions.
The union is there to ensure due process and to make sure management is
not arbitrary and capricious, as it often is.


--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

On 12/5/2014 1:47 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 12/5/14 1:42 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:55:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

Okay, I'll play...for the moment...until you revert back.

Labor unions exist to protect and improve the wages, hours, working
conditions, and medical coverage and retirement options of their
members. They also represent their members in grievances with employers.

If by "bad cops" et cetera, you are referring to union members accused
of serious crimes related to their jobs, then, yes, most unions will
support their members by providing and paying for the services of a
good-quality lawyer to mount a defense on the members' behalf. Doing so
ensures the member has the benefit of due process.

My "side" on this is that it is an important and proper benefit of union
membership.

===

Rightly or wrongly there is a widespread public perception that unions
protect incompetent members.


Weeding out bad cops is the job of police management, not police unions.
The union is there to ensure due process and to make sure management is
not arbitrary and capricious, as it often is.




Are you saying that in a case of a cop being terminated by management
(but wishes to fight it) the union's role is to verify the
justification for termination and, if valid, that's the end of it?

On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 13:42:48 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:55:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

Okay, I'll play...for the moment...until you revert back.

Labor unions exist to protect and improve the wages, hours, working
conditions, and medical coverage and retirement options of their
members. They also represent their members in grievances with employers.

If by "bad cops" et cetera, you are referring to union members accused
of serious crimes related to their jobs, then, yes, most unions will
support their members by providing and paying for the services of a
good-quality lawyer to mount a defense on the members' behalf. Doing so
ensures the member has the benefit of due process.

My "side" on this is that it is an important and proper benefit of union
membership.

===

Rightly or wrongly there is a widespread public perception that unions
protect incompetent members.

Apparently they get involved in the finding of guilt and innocence
also - even if in direct contradiction of Harry, et al, who would, it
seems, like to see Pantaleo hang.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...-grand-n261586
--

"When your argument has backed a liberal into a corner,
expect to be called a racist."

On 12/5/14 2:04 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/5/2014 1:47 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 12/5/14 1:42 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:55:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

Okay, I'll play...for the moment...until you revert back.

Labor unions exist to protect and improve the wages, hours, working
conditions, and medical coverage and retirement options of their
members. They also represent their members in grievances with
employers.

If by "bad cops" et cetera, you are referring to union members accused
of serious crimes related to their jobs, then, yes, most unions will
support their members by providing and paying for the services of a
good-quality lawyer to mount a defense on the members' behalf. Doing so
ensures the member has the benefit of due process.

My "side" on this is that it is an important and proper benefit of
union
membership.

===

Rightly or wrongly there is a widespread public perception that unions
protect incompetent members.


Weeding out bad cops is the job of police management, not police unions.
The union is there to ensure due process and to make sure management is
not arbitrary and capricious, as it often is.




Are you saying that in a case of a cop being terminated by management
(but wishes to fight it) the union's role is to verify the
justification for termination and, if valid, that's the end of it?



The union usually files a grievance in those circumstances and fights
the dismissal. Management has to prove justification. Sometimes the
cases go to arbitration. There's no hard and fast rule, but it is the
union's job to represent its members.


--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

On 12/5/14 2:06 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 13:42:48 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:55:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

Okay, I'll play...for the moment...until you revert back.

Labor unions exist to protect and improve the wages, hours, working
conditions, and medical coverage and retirement options of their
members. They also represent their members in grievances with employers.

If by "bad cops" et cetera, you are referring to union members accused
of serious crimes related to their jobs, then, yes, most unions will
support their members by providing and paying for the services of a
good-quality lawyer to mount a defense on the members' behalf. Doing so
ensures the member has the benefit of due process.

My "side" on this is that it is an important and proper benefit of union
membership.

===

Rightly or wrongly there is a widespread public perception that unions
protect incompetent members.

Apparently they get involved in the finding of guilt and innocence
also - even if in direct contradiction of Harry, et al, who would, it
seems, like to see Pantaleo hang.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...-grand-n261586



According to the news article, the union praised the grand jury *after*
it decided not to indict. How that counts as involvement in the finding
of innocence or guilt is a mystery. Well, perhaps to a rabid
right-winger like you, eh?



--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

On 12/5/2014 11:55 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 12/5/14 11:40 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:17:23 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 12/5/14 10:35 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:15:31 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

Johnny perseverates on this sort of crap, hoping to wear you out so
you
will play his game. Really. He's a little like Greg, but not nearly as
clever.

===

And you are a little like yourself, obnoxious as ever, and not clever
at all. I'd be interested in hearing your side of the discussion
about unions protecting bad cops, bad teachers, etc.


Sure, Wayne, as soon as you stop being an asshole here.

===

OK, I just stopped.

The ball is in your court.


Okay, I'll play...for the moment...until you revert back.

Labor unions exist to protect and improve the wages, hours, working
conditions, and medical coverage and retirement options of their
members. They also represent their members in grievances with employers.

If by "bad cops" et cetera, you are referring to union members accused
of serious crimes related to their jobs, then, yes, most unions will
support their members by providing and paying for the services of a
good-quality lawyer to mount a defense on the members' behalf. Doing so
ensures the member has the benefit of due process.

My "side" on this is that it is an important and proper benefit of union
membership.




That would be all well and good if I didn't have to pay for all that
coddling of lazy, over paid, under productive, sometimes incompetent
workers.

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 12/5/14 9:14 AM, KC wrote:
On 12/5/2014 8:49 AM, Poco Loco wrote:

The "Tea Party" has never been allowed to materialize...

Not enough white hoods to go around?



Racist!

On 12/6/14 12:09 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 13:44:26 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 12/5/14 12:13 PM, Poco Loco wrote:


These days, the cops would shoot you if you had one. They looked too
real.


The cops will shoot you, period.

No sweat, the unions will protect the cops.



Indeed, the police unions exist partially to ensure their members
receive fair due process and a good lawyer if they are accused of a
job-related criminal act.

I do appreciate that right-wing morons like you have problems with that
concept. Tough darts.

It seems left wing morons do too. I suppose you are really conflicted
here. The FOP is saying the New York cop is a boy scout, literally and
you think he is a murderer.


I'm not "conflicted" at all. I don't suffer from right-wing rigid
personality, and I don't expect the world to be *my way* or no way. I'm
glad cops accused of crimes have access to decent counsel at little or
no cost beyond their union dues. My personal feelings about these cops
who have been in the news lately does not lead me to a right-wing lynch
mob mentality.

--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

On 12/6/14 10:58 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 07:42:55 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 12/6/14 12:09 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 13:44:26 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 12/5/14 12:13 PM, Poco Loco wrote:


These days, the cops would shoot you if you had one. They looked too
real.


The cops will shoot you, period.

No sweat, the unions will protect the cops.



Indeed, the police unions exist partially to ensure their members
receive fair due process and a good lawyer if they are accused of a
job-related criminal act.

I do appreciate that right-wing morons like you have problems with that
concept. Tough darts.

It seems left wing morons do too. I suppose you are really conflicted
here. The FOP is saying the New York cop is a boy scout, literally and
you think he is a murderer.


I'm not "conflicted" at all. I don't suffer from right-wing rigid
personality, and I don't expect the world to be *my way* or no way. I'm
glad cops accused of crimes have access to decent counsel at little or
no cost beyond their union dues. My personal feelings about these cops
who have been in the news lately does not lead me to a right-wing lynch
mob mentality.

No, it is a left wing lynch mob.
You refuse to accept the actions of the justice system.


This is yet another in your famous string of attempts to argue your
point well beyond the onset of absurdity. You would have been a hoot in
college formal debate because you would have been disqualified or booed
off the podium.

I don't like the actions of grand juries that give cops a free ride when
they commit ultraviolence against unarmed civilians, but that doesn't
make me or others who feel as I do part of a lynch mob. I didn't like
the actions of the O.J. murder jury back in 1995, but I wasn't ready to
lynch anyone. I figured O.J. would get what was coming to him, sooner or
later, and I think the Missouri cop will, too, and so will your hero,
George Zimmerman.

--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.