Did you see my response to you in the other thread? If so I'd love a response to that post.
The unions negotiate the contract that demands arbitration be used. The unions provide the lawyers that represent the piece of shit cops that are fired. So yeah, it is the contract, the one that is negotiated by the very powerful police union and they are almost universally very pro-cop and very anti-oversight. They go so far as to sue to prevent Department of Justice recommendations (or mandates?) from being implemented.
If the union didn't demand this kind of bullshit it wouldn't exist but they do. Why you try to pretend otherwise is beyond me.
I did see it, but didn't have a chance to respond there before I replied here...
So, if you hired a lawyer, would you not want that lawyer to do whatever they could to defend you? How is that different than the lawyer that an officer uses as part of their union? I would think that a police union would use a lawyer that is very pro-cop. While you keep talking about these powerful unions, and yes, there are some out there, that is not the case everywhere. Here in VA, officers do not work under a contract and cannot collective bargain. The one department near me has chapters for 3 different unions (FOP, PBA, SPB) that some officers each belong to, but is not required. If an officer is terminated they can appeal the decision to the Chief or to an advisory panel. If they fail at that level, they can opt to take it to court.
As for the unions making the demands and that's it, that's BS as well. It takes two for the contract to be signed. If the city doesn't like the contract, they don't have to go along with it. The same is true for any other outfit that uses a union, such as teachers, steel workers, etc. One difference though, when was the last time you saw police officers go on strike when they didn't have a contract?
- Merg