John Adams Posted May 13, 2005 Posted May 13, 2005 Did this rule ONLY apply to women, or were you effected as well? 335251[/snapback] Was your post authorized by your Union, or have you decided to go out on a limb and think for yourself today?
Ghost of BiB Posted May 13, 2005 Posted May 13, 2005 I work in an environment where we can be tested for drugs, alchohol, whatever at any time - but on the job, or by prior arrangement, like a phone call in the afternoon to report in the morning. It's not a big deal...but it really does seem odd to me that it's considered legal to come to someone's home at random and do it. WTF. What if I'm into my fifth beer watching a Bills game? I'm not at work, I'm not bothering anybody, I'm not on the highway. What am I guilty of? Prior drinking history or no prior drinking history that's BS.
VABills Posted May 13, 2005 Posted May 13, 2005 Sorry Bill, but I agree with the city on this. This is only for police officers who have a troubled past, and have signed these as an agreement to retain their jobs. It would be easier for the city to just say, you are not a good cop because you have been caught drunk driving, abused your spouse while drunk, etc... The NFL, the military and a lot of other organizations with a reputation to uphold have similar policies. I believe the NFL for someone who has been under alchohol or drugs can do a random test whenever they want. In the military if we had someone who had drinking problems they were put on anabuse, and in some instances we actually had guys who had to report to the duty watch every two hours to have their breathed smelled to ensure they were not drinking, especially those going through out patient rehab. The NYC police have a reputation, and that includes off duty time. They are not going to randomly invade someones appartment that doesn't have a prior history of problems. Becuase if you think about it, it takes about an hour for each beer to filter through your system. If you have eight beers watching Monday night football, go to bed at 1 am, and have to report at 0600. You still have alchohol in your system, and to top it off drove to the precinct while drunk to get to your job. Again, this is only for thse with previous drinking incidents who could not control it, and now are considered a risk. The choice is easy, either they agree to the monitoring or they lose their jobs. Where I work, I need a clearance. If I get caught drunk driving, or some other alchohol related incident I can lose my job, even if it has nothing to do with work.
KD in CA Posted May 13, 2005 Posted May 13, 2005 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. 335250[/snapback] Bill, I don't mean to attack you or cops. I have a lot of respect for cops and generally feel they should be given a lot of leeway in doing their jobs. Usually when I hear about some scumbag getting roughed up or shot by cops it seems justified to me. And I hear what you are saying about the infringement on your personal life, but remember that cops are held to a higher standard than the rest of us -- AND SHOULD BE. That's the exchange for being the guy assigned the right to put me in cuffs, pull a gun on me, haul my ass to jail, etc. based on YOUR judgment. Don't take that to mean I endorse the new policy you started this thread discussing (I don’t know enough about the whole situation), but in general, you guys are going to be under the spotlight more than other citizens and I don't have a problem with that. I have an issue with union tactics in general. For example, expecting cash compensation for enacting a rule change is b.s. Certainly the people impacted by rule changes should be allowed a voice in the decision making process, but if at the end of the day that is the decision, than that's part of the job. I have to live by the rules of my work environment too, but since my job doesn't involve having people's lives on the line, the rules are naturally going to be less important. As far as compensation, all I know is NYC has a quarter million employees and the last budget I looked at had some astronomical number like $20B in employee compensation costs. Despite the propaganda from all the public section unions, NYC employees on average make a very reasonable living. And yet, when my office was half a block from city hall, rarely would a month pass without some group protesting for a richer contract. IMO, the people whose rights have been ignored are the taxpayers who are paying those contracts.
Bill from NYC Posted May 14, 2005 Author Posted May 14, 2005 >>>>>As far as compensation, all I know is NYC has a quarter million employees and the last budget I looked at had some astronomical number like $20B in employee compensation costs. Despite the propaganda from all the public section unions, NYC employees on average make a very reasonable living. And yet, when my office was half a block from city hall, rarely would a month pass without some group protesting for a richer contract. IMO, the people whose rights have been ignored are the taxpayers who are paying those contracts.<<<<< NYC Police Officers are paid $30,000 less than their counterparts in Nassau and Suffolk County. The Port Authority Police, who patrol the airports, the Bus Terminal, and bridges and tunnels that connect NY and NJ make approx. $20,000 more, as do the MTA Police, who patrol the Long Island Railroad and some of Penn Station. They are also working 2 years with an expired contract, and doing 10 times the work of the above listed depts (who I have a ton of respect for). The NYC pension structure is better, but NYC officers contribute 4 1/2% of their groos pay. The other depts contribute ZERO. In summary, NYC police are not "breaking the bank." Btw KD, I concur that police officers should be held to a higher standard. Invading the sanctity of ones home, and humiliating one in front of his or her family IS however crossing the line.
Bill from NYC Posted May 14, 2005 Author Posted May 14, 2005 Was your post authorized by your Union, or have you decided to go out on a limb and think for yourself today? 335385[/snapback] Again JA, I would rather that our posts are civil, but if you choose to continue to throw darts and little hissy fits, far be it from me to stand in your way. Either way, please accept my best wishes. If you can make it up for the Miami game, the beers are on me! GO BILLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
John Adams Posted May 14, 2005 Posted May 14, 2005 Again JA, I would rather that our posts are civil, but if you choose to continue to throw darts and little hissy fits, far be it from me to stand in your way. Either way, please accept my best wishes. If you can make it up for the Miami game, the beers are on me! GO BILLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 336311[/snapback] This little thing you do is funny: you apologize. You say you want to be civil. Then you call me gay. When I respond, you say you want to be civil again, to give the illusion that you somehow ever took the high road. Only queens act so bitchy. That being said, Go Bills. And I'd buy you a beer too, no matter if you're in or out of the closet.
Bill from NYC Posted May 14, 2005 Author Posted May 14, 2005 This little thing you do is funny: you apologize. You say you want to be civil. Then you call me gay. When I respond, you say you want to be civil again, to give the illusion that you somehow ever took the high road. Only queens act so bitchy. That being said, Go Bills. And I'd buy you a beer too, no matter if you're in or out of the closet. 336332[/snapback] Well, if I AM gay, at least I can count on your support to get married! Dude, enough is enough. This is all I am trying to say. Oh yeah, and please calm down. The olive branch is once again extended. I wish you well, and nothing else.
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 14, 2005 Posted May 14, 2005 Sorry Bill, but I agree with the city on this. This is only for police officers who have a troubled past, and have signed these as an agreement to retain their jobs. It would be easier for the city to just say, you are not a good cop because you have been caught drunk driving, abused your spouse while drunk, etc... The NFL, the military and a lot of other organizations with a reputation to uphold have similar policies. I believe the NFL for someone who has been under alchohol or drugs can do a random test whenever they want. In the military if we had someone who had drinking problems they were put on anabuse, and in some instances we actually had guys who had to report to the duty watch every two hours to have their breathed smelled to ensure they were not drinking, especially those going through out patient rehab. The NYC police have a reputation, and that includes off duty time. They are not going to randomly invade someones appartment that doesn't have a prior history of problems. Becuase if you think about it, it takes about an hour for each beer to filter through your system. If you have eight beers watching Monday night football, go to bed at 1 am, and have to report at 0600. You still have alchohol in your system, and to top it off drove to the precinct while drunk to get to your job. Again, this is only for thse with previous drinking incidents who could not control it, and now are considered a risk. The choice is easy, either they agree to the monitoring or they lose their jobs. Where I work, I need a clearance. If I get caught drunk driving, or some other alchohol related incident I can lose my job, even if it has nothing to do with work. 335418[/snapback] Exactly. That is a very valid point VA. Just look at my story where the off-duty CPD officers tried to bully their way into a situation where a good chunk of the southeast side could have taken out. It is a public safety issue. Cops in general, can act even if they are off-duty? It is almost like they are 24/7? Don't you usually see problems with off-duty cops and alchohol? They usually get into a pissing contest with somebody... It is human nature. What would happen if an off-duty cop failed to act in a public saftey situation? They probably could, it wouldn't look good. Their job is never ending... Even if they get paid only while on duty. I see it as this or put the screws to everybody. They could very easily say: "You want to be a cop? Then give up drinking forever." This isn't gonna go over well. Yet, one makes choices and sacrifices to attain things they want. A police officer' work is never ending and their life affects public safety and reflects on the department. Question? Do the weapons that police officers use leave their place of employment when they "punch out?" Do some departments let you take a squad car home?... YOU BET!
Bill from NYC Posted May 15, 2005 Author Posted May 15, 2005 Exactly. That is a very valid point VA. Just look at my story where the off-duty CPD officers tried to bully their way into a situation where a good chunk of the southeast side could have taken out. It is a public safety issue. Cops in general, can act even if they are off-duty? It is almost like they are 24/7? Don't you usually see problems with off-duty cops and alchohol? They usually get into a pissing contest with somebody... It is human nature. What would happen if an off-duty cop failed to act in a public saftey situation? They probably could, it wouldn't look good. Their job is never ending... Even if they get paid only while on duty. I see it as this or put the screws to everybody. They could very easily say: "You want to be a cop? Then give up drinking forever." This isn't gonna go over well. Yet, one makes choices and sacrifices to attain things they want. A police officer' work is never ending and their life affects public safety and reflects on the department. Question? Do the weapons that police officers use leave their place of employment when they "punch out?" Do some departments let you take a squad car home?... YOU BET! 336517[/snapback] Hey, a supposed "liberal" who is against a group of people having rights! What a surprise!!! NOT!!!!!
blzrul Posted May 15, 2005 Posted May 15, 2005 Some companies are now firing people who smoke. I can see that, if a person is so addicted that he or she is constantly going outside for a smoke break, meaning that he or she is not working. However, apparently some employers feel that smoking, period, is an offense for which someone can be fired because of healthcare costs, time off from work (smokers tend to get sick more) etc. I dunno - I don't smoke but it doesn't particularly bother me that I work with smokers. I think that if a person does something on their own time that is not illegal or in any way a conflict of interest with their employment, it's no-one's business.
Bill from NYC Posted May 15, 2005 Author Posted May 15, 2005 Some companies are now firing people who smoke. I can see that, if a person is so addicted that he or she is constantly going outside for a smoke break, meaning that he or she is not working. However, apparently some employers feel that smoking, period, is an offense for which someone can be fired because of healthcare costs, time off from work (smokers tend to get sick more) etc. I dunno - I don't smoke but it doesn't particularly bother me that I work with smokers. I think that if a person does something on their own time that is not illegal or in any way a conflict of interest with their employment, it's no-one's business. 336735[/snapback] Deb, posts like this imo are what seperates you from the "wishy-washy" liberals. Either you want people to have rights (within reason of course), or you do not. Call me crazy, but I think that late night home invasions in the presence of one's spouse and children are unreasonable, but hey....that's just me.
Ghost of BiB Posted May 15, 2005 Posted May 15, 2005 Some companies are now firing people who smoke. I can see that, if a person is so addicted that he or she is constantly going outside for a smoke break, meaning that he or she is not working. However, apparently some employers feel that smoking, period, is an offense for which someone can be fired because of healthcare costs, time off from work (smokers tend to get sick more) etc. I dunno - I don't smoke but it doesn't particularly bother me that I work with smokers. I think that if a person does something on their own time that is not illegal or in any way a conflict of interest with their employment, it's no-one's business. 336735[/snapback] Hey what are you wearing?
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 16, 2005 Posted May 16, 2005 Hey, a supposed "liberal" who is against a group of people having rights! What a surprise!!! NOT!!!!! 336688[/snapback] Did these cops deserve to lose their rights? They are not coming down on the non-problems Bill. They are coming down on the ones that go home, punch their wife or act like "hard-arses" in public. If it were me, I would just fire 'em... Quit the dicking around.
Bill from NYC Posted May 16, 2005 Author Posted May 16, 2005 Did these cops deserve to lose their rights? They are not coming down on the non-problems Bill. They are coming down on the ones that go home, punch their wife or act like "hard-arses" in public. If it were me, I would just fire 'em... Quit the dicking around. 337877[/snapback] Guys who punch their wife and are convicted of assault are fired EIL. It is illegal to carry a firearm in the United States after a misdemeanor or better domestic violence conviction, right? My entire point is NOT to protect abusive cops. I just think it is OK for a US citizen to do legal things in their homes without Big brother barging in and terrorizing their families. If Internal Affairs is SO legit, they should be able to catch offenders, right? PS: An Internal Affairs Lieutenant recently shot an unarmed civilian while collecting back rent from a tennant. There will be no marches led by Al Sharpton because they both are the same race; however this officer is up against it right now. I get really sad when Internal Affairs guys get jammed up. Can you feel it?
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 Guys who punch their wife and are convicted of assault fired EIL. It is illegal to carry a firearm in the United States after a misdemeanor or better domestic violence conviction, right? My entire point is NOT to protect abusive cops. I just think it is OK for a US citizen to do legal things in their homes without Big brother barging in and terrorizing their families. If Internal Affairs is SO legit, they should be able to catch offenders, right? PS: An Internal Affairs Lieutenant recently shot an unarmed civilian while collecting back rent from a tennant. There will be no marches led by Al Sharpton because they both are the same race; however this officer is up against it right now. I get really sad when Internal Affairs guys get jammed up. Can you feel it? 337896[/snapback] I see you point about assault. There is a culture that needs to be brought down about "protecting your own." I have a hard time understanding you. You say you don't want to protect abusive cops... Yet, you don't want the problems to be monitored. I would much rather be happy if the problem cops and their drinking be terminated immediately. We are talking about problem drinkers on the force? You don't have a problem? Do not worry, they won't be coming for you? All it is, is a mechanism to make sure that the force realizes not to go overboard drinking. If you do, you got a problem, you get monitored. If you don't like it? The door swings both ways.
Bill from NYC Posted May 17, 2005 Author Posted May 17, 2005 I see you point about assault. There is a culture that needs to be brought down about "protecting your own." I have a hard time understanding you. You say you don't want to protect abusive cops... Yet, you don't want the problems to be monitored. I would much rather be happy if the problem cops and their drinking be terminated immediately. We are talking about problem drinkers on the force? You don't have a problem? Do not worry, they won't be coming for you? All it is, is a mechanism to make sure that the force realizes not to go overboard drinking. If you do, you got a problem, you get monitored. If you don't like it? The door swings both ways. 337908[/snapback] True, but soon that same door will be swinging this way for you as your rights dwindle. Why can't you see this?
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 True, but soon that same door will be swinging this way for you as your rights dwindle. Why can't you see this? 337958[/snapback] I knew this was coming from you Bill... I just don't see it. I have faith we won't cross that line. I do respect your concern and it does concern me. That is why they should just get rid of the problems on the department quick.
Alaska Darin Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 I knew this was coming from you Bill... I just don't see it. I have faith we won't cross that line. I do respect your concern and it does concern me. That is why they should just get rid of the problems on the department quick. 337965[/snapback] The line hasn't been crossed. It was obliterated long ago.
Recommended Posts