BART police - more on why there are problems

[Craig234]

The San Francisco Bay Guardian is the leading liberal publication in San Francisco. They're quite liberal, constantly pushing liberal causes against a too-corporate-friendly city hall.

So, here's a column by the Editor in Chief, the excellent Tim Redomon, about the BART police and their union. Get ready for nothing but defending the union - right, Republicans?

The BART board's committee on police oversight first proposed a very weak model, but that got shot down at a community meeting last week, and now member Tom Radulovich is proposing a somewhat stronger approach. He wants a BART police commission with professional staff and the ability to investigate misconduct cases. There are still a bunch of issues -- the civilian review agency should get all police abuse cases and should have a clear role in recommending discipline. I prefer a San Francisco-style model, which is what Assembly member Tom Ammiano is pushing, and I still think the Legislature needs to move forward on this.

But as Radulovich has looked into how the BART police really operate, he's learned a lot -- and some of it is truly amazing.

For example, he told me, the BART police union contract spells out the terms of allowable discipline for BART cops (which is crazy to begin with), but the result is mind-boggling in its insanity. Right now, by contract, the chief can only impose three types of discipline on an errant cop:
-- A letter of reprimand
-- A one-day suspension WITH PAY (that is, a paid holiday)
-- Termination.

And since it's very hard to fire a cop, that means there is basically no effective discipline.

In every American police jurisidiction I've ever heard of, a cop can be suspended without pay -- and in San Francisco, serious offenses lead to 30, 60, or 90 day suspensions.

But if you're a BART cop, you can screw up pretty badly and nothing at all will every happen to you.

That contract comes up in June, and the BART Board must change it. "This clearly needs to be an issue in the negotiations," Radulovich told me.

Another looney provision: All of the officers other than the chief have union protection -- and the chief can't fire, demote or in any way control his own commanders. Nobody works at the chief's pleasure.

So there's a weak chief reporting to a bad general manager and no effective discipline at all. No wonder the force is such a godawful mess.

The column is useful info - but it's also useful for Republicans to recognize that their view that liberals always side with the unions is wrong.

Liberals are more union-friendly, but they can see excesses and abuses as well. There's a reason the union opponents had to spread that lie recently about UAW workers averaging $70 an hour; it's because they had to use a lie since the truth about union doesn't sound nearly so bad.

Many union opponents don't realize they're the victims of propaganda from those who simply stand to profit from paying lower wages - whatever the harm to workers.

As for the BART police, the officers have seemed fine in my interactions, but this column is right that it's a crazy set of rules.

 

[cubby1223]

Okay, let me see if these are the appropriate cliffs for this thread:

"Here is a situation I found where I, Craig234, think unions are bad, therefore you must then believe me when I say Republicans who oppose the UAW do so only to further "the rich's" desire to hoard wealth"

 

[Lanyap]

Maybe it's because they are going after cops? Isn't that the liberal thing to do?

But Redomon is correct. There should be appropriate discipline for police.

This is probably a bad example for you to use...

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Craig234
The San Francisco Bay Guardian is the leading liberal publication in San Francisco. They're quite liberal, constantly pushing liberal causes against a too-corporate-friendly city hall.

So, here's a column by the Editor in Chief, the excellent Tim Redomon, about the BART police and their union. Get ready for nothing but defending the union - right, Republicans?

The BART board's committee on police oversight first proposed a very weak model, but that got shot down at a community meeting last week, and now member Tom Radulovich is proposing a somewhat stronger approach. He wants a BART police commission with professional staff and the ability to investigate misconduct cases. There are still a bunch of issues -- the civilian review agency should get all police abuse cases and should have a clear role in recommending discipline. I prefer a San Francisco-style model, which is what Assembly member Tom Ammiano is pushing, and I still think the Legislature needs to move forward on this.

But as Radulovich has looked into how the BART police really operate, he's learned a lot -- and some of it is truly amazing.

For example, he told me, the BART police union contract spells out the terms of allowable discipline for BART cops (which is crazy to begin with), but the result is mind-boggling in its insanity. Right now, by contract, the chief can only impose three types of discipline on an errant cop:
-- A letter of reprimand
-- A one-day suspension WITH PAY (that is, a paid holiday)
-- Termination.

And since it's very hard to fire a cop, that means there is basically no effective discipline.

In every American police jurisidiction I've ever heard of, a cop can be suspended without pay -- and in San Francisco, serious offenses lead to 30, 60, or 90 day suspensions.

But if you're a BART cop, you can screw up pretty badly and nothing at all will every happen to you.

That contract comes up in June, and the BART Board must change it. "This clearly needs to be an issue in the negotiations," Radulovich told me.

Another looney provision: All of the officers other than the chief have union protection -- and the chief can't fire, demote or in any way control his own commanders. Nobody works at the chief's pleasure.

So there's a weak chief reporting to a bad general manager and no effective discipline at all. No wonder the force is such a godawful mess.

The column is useful info - but it's also useful for Republicans to recognize that their view that liberals always side with the unions is wrong.

Liberals are more union-friendly, but they can see excesses and abuses as well. There's a reason the union opponents had to spread that lie recently about UAW workers averaging $70 an hour; it's because they had to use a lie since the truth about union doesn't sound nearly so bad.

Many union opponents don't realize they're the victims of propaganda from those who simply stand to profit from paying lower wages - whatever the harm to workers.

As for the BART police, the officers have seemed fine in my interactions, but this column is right that it's a crazy set of rules.

Union workers crowd out non union workers. If a fit and productive job hunter is willing to work for less money, the company can't hire him because of rates negotiated by unions. Instead, the company will need to hire an overpaid, fat, lazy union worker.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Okay, let me see if these are the appropriate cliffs for this thread:

"Here is a situation I found where I, Craig234, think unions are bad, therefore you must then believe me when I say Republicans who oppose the UAW do so only to further "the rich's" desire to hoard wealth"

Well he already told us in his second sentence that San Francisco has a too-corporate-friendly city hall. I wouldn't know what to think if he didn't tell me.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: Craig234

The column is useful info - but it's also useful for Republicans to recognize that their view that liberals always side with the unions is wrong.

Liberals are more union-friendly, but they can see excesses and abuses as well. There's a reason the union opponents had to spread that lie recently about UAW workers averaging $70 an hour; it's because they had to use a lie since the truth about union doesn't sound nearly so bad.

Many union opponents don't realize they're the victims of propaganda from those who simply stand to profit from paying lower wages - whatever the harm to workers.

As for the BART police, the officers have seemed fine in my interactions, but this column is right that it's a crazy set of rules.

And you're posting this why exactly? The vast majority of Republicans don't give a sh!t about what you do in San Francisco (except maybe to use as a negative example).

 

[Drift3r]

LoL - Corporate friendly city hall in SF? Are you trying to be funny here?

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Lanyap
Maybe it's because they are going after cops? Isn't that the liberal thing to do?

But Redomon is correct. There should be appropriate discipline for police.

This is probably a bad example for you to use...

Actually it is because they are going after cops but SF has no real say on what BART cops are paid or their benefits. BART Police are part the BART ( Bay Area Rapid Transit ) agency created by the state which have a separate jurisdiction from the counties they serve.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Instead, the company will need to hire an overpaid, fat, lazy union worker.

I'm a thin handsome union worker and fucked if some fat lazy shit is going to do my job, and thats why the contract says it's not going to happen

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Originally posted by: Hacp
Instead, the company will need to hire an overpaid, fat, lazy union worker.

I'm a thin handsome union worker and fucked if some fat lazy shit is going to do my job, and thats why the contract says it's not going to happen

He wont listen.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Okay, let me see if these are the appropriate cliffs for this thread:

"Here is a situation I found where I, Craig234, think unions are bad, therefore you must then believe me when I say Republicans who oppose the UAW do so only to further "the rich's" desire to hoard wealth"

They're not. The Cliffs are that liberals oppose big union excesses, in contradiction to the right's ignorant belief in many cases that the left says 'no limits' to unions.

Lanyap:

Originally posted by: Lanyap
Maybe it's because they are going after cops? Isn't that the liberal thing to do?

But Redomon is correct. There should be appropriate discipline for police.

This is probably a bad example for you to use...

Good catch, but not right, it's a coincidence. Liberals like cops generally (Clinton and 100,000 cop program, for example, ifyou remember). They don't like police *abuse*.

It was the right's G. Gordon Liddy who promoted 'head shots' to right-wing militias for the ATF - not liberals.

Hacp:

Union workers crowd out non union workers. If a fit and productive job hunter is willing to work for less money, the company can't hire him because of rates negotiated by unions. Instead, the company will need to hire an overpaid, fat, lazy union worker.

You prove my point about the ignorance of many right-wingers.

The Union cops have fine standards - and oh, darn, livable salaries. Sorry.

Nebor:

Well he already told us in his second sentence that San Francisco has a too-corporate-friendly city hall. I wouldn't know what to think if he didn't tell me.

Unintentional irony.

glenn1:

And you're posting this why exactly? The vast majority of Republicans don't give a sh!t about what you do in San Francisco (except maybe to use as a negative example).

Answered in the OP. Stop the lies about liberals and unions and the thread would not be needed.

Drift3r:

LoL - Corporate friendly city hall in SF? Are you trying to be funny here?

As I often do, it's partly tongue in cheek and partly making a point. The paper's take on City Hall is that they're too pro-corporate; they have thousands of stories along those lines.

Tweaking the right-wing's myths about San Francisco with the statement was the tongue in cheek part; it was a way for me to support my statement this is a liberal paper, too.

But their stories are typicaly good, and they do uncover a lot of corporate corruption, which is the informative part of the comment.

There's big money in San Francisco. It shouldn't be a shock that there are abuses, especially to a liberal.

SF has no real say on what BART cops are paid or their benefits. BART Police are part the BART ( Bay Area Rapid Transit ) agency created by the state which have a separate jurisdiction from the counties they serve.

It's a SF bay area paper commenting on a state issue - with the added local connection that while BART is a state agency, it's a *Bay Area* system, as in SF bay area.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Okay, let me see if these are the appropriate cliffs for this thread:

"Here is a situation I found where I, Craig234, think unions are bad, therefore you must then believe me when I say Republicans who oppose the UAW do so only to further "the rich's" desire to hoard wealth"

They're not. The Cliffs are that liberals oppose big union excesses, in contradiction to the right's ignorant belief in many cases that the left says 'no limits' to unions.

Where did any of us say that you support union excesses? Ignorance thy name is Craig. You're the one who brought the UAW into the discussion and said we are "victims of propaganda from those who simply stand to profit from paying lower wages - whatever the harm to workers."

But I'll play your game - and here's the bigger question, how do you stop union excesses? By voting for the candidates who line their pockets with campaign contributions from the unions?