Bill from NYC Posted May 11, 2005 Posted May 11, 2005 For those of you who would rather not read this long story, the Police Department is now going to invade the homes of off duty police officers who have had drinking problems in the past and give them breathalizer tests. They will also detain them for 20 minutes in order to "observe" them. I was always under the impression that when a person is deprived of coming or going as they choose, this constitutes an arrest. Not so I guess for police officers. Several years ago, there was an avenue for NYC police officers to go if they wished to come forward about a problem. It was called the "Early Intervention Unit." Sounds good, but an officer would come forward and state that he had a problem.....be it drinking, divorce, etc. Within an hour, they would throw a net on the officer like a wild ape in the jungle. His (or her) firearms would be taken away for years. The officer would sometimes have to sweep the precint floors in front of his peers, and his career would be ruined. As a result, cops were blowing their brains out before seeking this kind of "help." Literally. The unions started another program which was confidential. There were highly trained members of the service that served as "peer counselors." Arrangements were made for therapy with those who specialized in specific areas. They worked with insurance companies. Management saw how well this was working and supported the program. Safeguards were implemented. For example, if suicicde was mentioned, all bets were off. They would come and get you, which I applaud. Additionally, this was not a safety umbrella for those already in trouble. It was for officers who needed help before things got worse. I am afraid that this great program will be weakened. Who now will come for help? It is sad indeed. Never, do I ever want to see these brave people killing themselves again. As we all know, many people hate cops. On this board, the general support for police officers has brought a tear to my eye, it was so wonderful. That said, it is easy to say that "cops shouldn't drink too much." This is true. Intoxicated cops can cause harm to innocent civilians, other cops and themselves. I just dont think that homes should be invaded in the middle of the night as if they are hunting for Bin-Laden. Trust me, you will be next. You may not believe it, but YOUR rights, and the things that YOU enjoy will be trampled upon if things like this are put into effect. Sorry for the rant. Pitiful
Gavin in Va Beach Posted May 11, 2005 Posted May 11, 2005 If I had to deal with what many of your brothers and sisters in blue had to deal with, I'd probably be drinking very heavily. But invading a home to give a breathalizer test? Man that is just fuggin' too totaliatarian for me. What's next, wearing a vest with doodads that constantly measure one's vitals, like they do for astronauts? crazy sheet man...
Alaska Darin Posted May 11, 2005 Posted May 11, 2005 If I had to deal with what many of your brothers and sisters in blue had to deal with, I'd probably be drinking very heavily. But invading a home to give a breathalizer test? Man that is just fuggin' too totaliatarian for me. What's next, wearing a vest with doodads that constantly measure one's vitals, like they do for astronauts? crazy sheet man... 333863[/snapback] Welcome to NYC - where they LOVE freedom.
Bill from NYC Posted May 11, 2005 Author Posted May 11, 2005 If I had to deal with what many of your brothers and sisters in blue had to deal with, I'd probably be drinking very heavily. But invading a home to give a breathalizer test? Man that is just fuggin' too totaliatarian for me. What's next, wearing a vest with doodads that constantly measure one's vitals, like they do for astronauts? crazy sheet man... 333863[/snapback] Thanks Gavin. Sadly, I am serious when I predict that more of the same is around the corner. I am about to be chastized by John Adams for saying this (he is stalking me), but there was a report of a company in Michigan that is testing for off duty cigarette smoking. Alcohol is surely to follow. Things that were impossible to believe a decade ago are common today in terms of rights that have vanished. I predict that in 5 or so years, eating, smoking and drinking will be banned in NFL parking lots. There will be no tailgating allowed. Check out the proposal for the jests stadium. Btw, when and if this happens, the Buffalo Bills will no longer exist. I have been to the Ralph for 11 consecutive years and have seen what people enjoy there....... friends and families having fun, and being not "perfect" by liberal yuppie standards (joined by their self-righteous repub friends ala Pataki/Bloomberg). The stadium would be a ghost town and the Bills would play in LA, or some other "liberal" venue. I hope and pray that I am wrong.
John Adams Posted May 11, 2005 Posted May 11, 2005 Thanks Gavin. Sadly, I am serious when I predict that more of the same is around the corner. I am about to be chastized by John Adams for saying this (he is stalking me), but there was a report of a company in Michigan that is testing for off duty cigarette smoking. Alcohol is surely to follow. Things that were impossible to believe a decade ago are common today in terms of rights that have vanished. I predict that in 5 or so years, eating, smoking and drinking will be banned in NFL parking lots. There will be no tailgating allowed. Check out the proposal for the jests stadium. Btw, when and if this happens, the Buffalo Bills will no longer exist. I have been to the Ralph for 11 consecutive years and have seen what people enjoy there....... friends and families having fun, and being not "perfect" by liberal yuppie standards (joined by their self-righteous repub friends ala Pataki/Bloomberg). The stadium would be a ghost town and the Bills would play in LA, or some other "liberal" venue. I hope and pray that I am wrong. 333881[/snapback] Stalking he says. So the Liberals are taking over? How come the Liberals think the Republicans are taking over? Could it be that there's little difference? As to the actual topic of this thread, it sounds big-brotherish, but there's more to this than meets the eye. These are employees who have had a substance abuse problem-- so bad that it affected their work. In my office, if you have a substance abuse problem that affects your work, you're fired. No excuses. For police officers, the apparent deal under the new rules is that if you are a substance abuser, you get to keep your job, BUT only if you agree to certain rather Draconian restrictions. It's terrible, but it's a step up from being fired. Without a doubt, there have to be better ways of doing this.
Bill from NYC Posted May 11, 2005 Author Posted May 11, 2005 Stalking he says. So the Liberals are taking over? How come the Liberals think the Republicans are taking over? Could it be that there's little difference? As to the actual topic of this thread, it sounds big-brotherish, but there's more to this than meets the eye. These are employees who have had a substance abuse problem-- so bad that it affected their work. In my office, if you have a substance abuse problem that affects your work, you're fired. No excuses. For police officers, the apparent deal under the new rules is that if you are a substance abuser, you get to keep your job, BUT only if you agree to certain rather Draconian restrictions. It's terrible, but it's a step up from being fired. Without a doubt, there have to be better ways of doing this. 333911[/snapback] Thank you for a civil response. I feel the need to correct your usage of the word "substance." This ONLY involves alcohol. Police Officers are already subject to random drug testing. Even a trace of marijuana means that you are fired, no pension (even if you have your time completed to be eligible for it). The union took the drug testing policy to court and lost. We were seeking to be compensated for the change in policy. There were no complaints from the rank and file. This is different, and as you stated, there must be a better way.
PTS Posted May 11, 2005 Posted May 11, 2005 Welcome to NYC - where they LOVE freedom. 333875[/snapback] "It's clearly a sign that we are all a little nervous in a post-911 world."
John Adams Posted May 11, 2005 Posted May 11, 2005 Thank you for a civil response. I feel the need to correct your usage of the word "substance." This ONLY involves alcohol. Police Officers are already subject to random drug testing. Even a trace of marijuana means that you are fired, no pension (even if you have your time completed to be eligible for it). The union took the drug testing policy to court and lost. We were seeking to be compensated for the change in policy. There were no complaints from the rank and file. This is different, and as you stated, there must be a better way. 333922[/snapback] Thanks for not talking about smoking.* What does "compensated for the change in policy" mean? What compensation did you want? *much
UConn James Posted May 11, 2005 Posted May 11, 2005 I predict that in 5 or so years, eating, smoking and drinking will be banned in NFL parking lots. There will be no tailgating allowed. Check out the proposal for the jests stadium. Btw, when and if this happens, the Buffalo Bills will no longer exist. I have been to the Ralph for 11 consecutive years and have seen what people enjoy there....... friends and families having fun, and being not "perfect" by liberal yuppie standards (joined by their self-righteous repub friends ala Pataki/Bloomberg). 333881[/snapback] Sounds kind of like UConn's Rentschler Stadium, where about the only grilling you can do is on an electric hibatchi. Unfuggin-believable. Back when they played in Snorrs/Yukon/UCan't, I saw some pretty outrageous stuff in the tailgating milieu. My brother is graduating from the police academy next Tuesday. A largely thankless, Catch-22 job.
Bill from NYC Posted May 11, 2005 Author Posted May 11, 2005 Thanks for not talking about smoking.* What does "compensated for the change in policy" mean? What compensation did you want? *much 333945[/snapback] We wanted monetary compensation for the unilaterily imposed change in working conditions, but we lost.
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 I guess if you don't have a drinking problem you won't have a problem with the policy? What constitutes getting into this group of problem drinkers? Sorry I didn't open the hyperlink. I have to admit, as some of called me in the past "StalinIllinois"... This NYC policy seems a bit ridiculous!
Ghost of BiB Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 Damn, bill...how'd they get this past the union? Maybe the NYCPD should all take up basketball. would make that go away in a hurry.
John Adams Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 We wanted monetary compensation for the unilaterily imposed change in working conditions, but we lost. 334060[/snapback] Translated some sort of lawyer-speak into English: you wanted to get paid for a rule change. Is that standard Union practice? I assume it is.
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 Damn, bill...how'd they get this past the union? Maybe the NYCPD should all take up basketball. would make that go away in a hurry. 334331[/snapback] Maybe the union knows that they are going after... May I say it loud? PROBLEM DRINKERS IN THE PAST. That means? Let me guess? Cops that had problems so bad that the department somehow got wind of them? Here is a story. One time I was looking about 5,000 ton of jet fuel. Commercial craft gets locking priority. They also have to lock ALONE with hazardous commodities. Pleasure boats CAN'T LOCK with HAZARDOUS commodities, they have to wait. The rule is if you can't accomadate them with in three lockages (one way) you can make a special pleasure boat lockage... Sometimes this may take 3 hours or longer. To make a long story short, while we were locking the jet fuel, a boat with three off duty Chicago officers came in and demanded to lock with the tonnage... We told them to leave... They wouldn't... Of course they were boozed up to the hilt. It took 4 hours, my supervisor, their supervisors to get them out of the chamber. After they threw around the death threats and other types of retailiation they finally got out... Probably because they SOBBERED UP? These are exactly the clowns the PD will target. It helps when you have a non-partial agency (as in my case) to see first hand.
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 Did I mention they drew their weapons? This was pre-911. Now... I would just let the clowns lock and sit there till the USCG (with expanded powers) took care of them. Maybe they wouldn't have blown the place up?
Ghost of BiB Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 Did I mention they drew their weapons? This was pre-911. Now... I would just let the clowns lock and sit there till the USCG (with expanded powers) took care of them. Maybe they wouldn't have blown the place up? 334424[/snapback] I do like that rapid transition to Title 10 Authority stuff...
KD in CA Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 Translated some sort of lawyer-speak into English: you wanted to get paid for a rule change. Is that standard Union practice? I assume it is. 334338[/snapback] And people wonder why some of us can't stand unions. A rule change is usually enacted to benefit the greater good, no? Hey, my condo board just made a rule that my dog can't take a dump on the lawn....where's my compensation?
John Adams Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 And people wonder why some of us can't stand unions. A rule change is usually enacted to benefit the greater good, no? Hey, my condo board just made a rule that my dog can't take a dump on the lawn....where's my compensation? 334662[/snapback] Our firm just made a rule that women can't wear open-toed shoes. That's worth a 10 cent an hour raise. Not to mention, they removed one of the three microwaves. That should be good for 50 cents an hour.
Bill from NYC Posted May 13, 2005 Author Posted May 13, 2005 And people wonder why some of us can't stand unions. A rule change is usually enacted to benefit the greater good, no? Hey, my condo board just made a rule that my dog can't take a dump on the lawn....where's my compensation? 334662[/snapback] KD, you are making too big an issue of this. I understand, because you were not there. The challenge was more of a token gesture. A precedent had been set in Detroit. Listen, this is discussion. I am NOT trying to anger you......just floating ideas and exchanging dialogue. I already have one obsessed person who while sorting through his own rather serious issues, is ridiculing and disecting my every word. >>>>And people wonder why some of us can't stand unions.<<<< Truthfully, I would expect more from you than the above. If my wife (a hispanic) did something you did not like, would you justify "not being able to stand hispanics?" Would you speak of any other group of people in such an all inclusive manner? At the time, the PBA president was a man named Phil Caruso. He did many great things for both his membership and NYC. His salary was extremely low by union standards, and the first thing that he did when he was installed was to dramatically slash the expense accounts of Executive Board members. Phil was NOT a radical by any stretch of the imagination, and there was no outcry when he lost this particular challenge. NYC police officers would prefer not to sit next to a junkie in a radio car, thank you very much. I am guessing that at your place of employment, there are several people that are addicted to perscription pain killers, a growing trend. Are you guys tested? Soon imo, you will be. For this AND legal substances.
Bill from NYC Posted May 13, 2005 Author Posted May 13, 2005 Our firm just made a rule that women can't wear open-toed shoes. That's worth a 10 cent an hour raise. Not to mention, they removed one of the three microwaves. That should be good for 50 cents an hour. 335006[/snapback] Did this rule ONLY apply to women, or were you effected as well?
Recommended Posts