Comments on: Public insubordination by Dayton Police Union Leader

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 03:33:39 +0000

@DL, thanks for referencing the Rachel Maddow clip. I’m not sure what is so obnoxious about it/her… I mean, facts are facts, and she gave multiple examples to support her point. She’s not being a pundit or giving opinions — she’s pretty much laying the facts out there. For those with ears, let them hear…

Brilliant or Bozo? 0 0

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 03:25:26 +0000

>refer to “acts of terrorism” as “man caused disasters.”

@Bubba, you’re absolutely right. That’s ludicrous. But I don’t think everyone on the left wants to be that PC, just as I don’t think everyone on the right wants (insert fun issue here). Broad brushes get us all in trouble.

Brilliant or Bozo? 0 0

By: jstults

jstults — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:03:00 +0000

I don’t think this thread has anything to do with the President, but since you guys brought it up,
David L.:

You see the idea that Obama refuses to acknowledge the war on terror…

Bubba:

…not the phrase “war on terror” until after the panty-bomber.

In fact, at the start of the current administration folks in the Executive branch were encouraged to stop referring to our current overseas operations as GWOT (global war on terror). I don’t think it really matters, and it is actually more accurate and useful for clear thinking and communication to refer to specific regions and operations rather than a bland and ugly one-size fits all acronym anyway. Sloppy language leads to sloppy thought. I think it is kind of silly that this instruction on verbiage has been spun by some folks as ‘the President is ignoring terrorists’.

And I don’t watch any TV news, so there!

Brilliant or Bozo? 0 0

By: Bubba Jones

Bubba Jones — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:31:37 +0000

Geez, that woman is obnoxious!! (BTW, DE – are we allowed to do name calling to people that don’t actually participate on this blog?) I’m not sure who’s worse – Rachel Maddow or Nancy Grace. At least Rachel doesn’t yell constantly though.

I will admit that last night (1/13) was the first time that I’ve ever heard of or seen Rachel Maddow. I happened to watch a little MS-NBC coverage of Haiti while scrolling through the channels and she was on. She didn’t impress me last night either. All I can say is that having people like her on MS-NBC completely nullifies the argument from the left that Fox News is the only biased news channel on cable. And, no, I don’t watch Fox on any regular basis either.

DL – I would hardly call 4 clips “a series”. Well, maybe it’s a small series and quite possibly the four times he’s used that word prior to 12/25/09. Anyway, I’m not going to nitpick about that stuff. But, the President sometimes uses the word “terror” but not the phrase “war on terror” until after the panty-bomber. I think part of Jeff’s point, and the point of others on the right, is that this administration is trying to stay politically correct and is attempting to change certain terminology. I believe it was the very lovely and competent Ms. Nepolotono who know wants to refer to “acts of terrorism” as “man caused disasters.” Good stuff!

Have you gotten your thank you note from MS-NBC yet? You know, the note that thanks you for being one of the 47 people that watches their network? (OK, I’ve got my flame suit on now!! )

Brilliant or Bozo? 0 0

By: David Lauri

David Lauri — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:52:51 +0000

This is like Obama and his refusal to acknowledge the war on terror

Jeff, if this were my website, I’d call you a five letter word starting with “i” and ending in “t” but David E doesn’t allow name calling. Instead I’ll dare you to watch Rachel Maddow’s proof that you are that five letter word. Watch this clip, in particular starting at 5:06, in which Senator Jim DeMint claims that Obama “doesn’t even use the word [terrorism] any more,” followed by a series of clips of Obama using that word. You see the idea that Obama refuses to acknowledge the war on terror is, as Maddow says of DeMint and I say of you, “true… only in Jim DeMint’s [and your] mind.”

Brilliant or Bozo? 0 0

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 01:35:57 +0000

>This is like Obama and his refusal to acknowledge the war on terror

@Jeff: you’re obviously not watching any news other than Fox. Terrorism has been repeatedly acknowledged by Obama. It’s an absolute, incontrovertible fact. The only people who think he’s refusing to acknowledge it are those who watch Fox news and/or listen to Rush. The people at Fox don’t even believe this, but they’re happy to mislead their flock because it’s good for business. They think they have a winning strategy to convince people “he’s not really an American, he’s not a citizen, he’s an arab, he won’t protect you, he’s a socialist, he hates America, etc. It’s all crap, but a surprising number of people just lap it up and ask for “more, please”. I don’t understand how anyone can think the world is that simple (or “fair and balanced”).

Brilliant or Bozo? 0 0

By: David Esrati

David Esrati — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 23:07:34 +0000

@Jeff (and btw- you need to add something to Jeff- since we already had a Jeff- from Daytonology).

I don’t have a thing against the unions. I do question their role in politics. But, I’ll stand my ground on questioning orders of the chief- challenge it in court.

As to getting into this country illegally- that’s a whole other can of worms- that isn’t central to this discussion. Deportation doesn’t work. Ask California, Texas, Arizona.

Brilliant or Bozo? 0 0

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:56:45 +0000

This is like Obama and his refusal to acknowledge the war on terror, we better not upset any foreigner or else no one will like us. Let us put America at risk because we don’t wish to appear as being insensitive. WTF? If your here illegally then you should get your butt arrested and deported, bottom line. If you got into this country illegally and didn’t get caught you should work, live and die invisibly. Dayton Police officers have enough to worry about with our out of control crime rate, now lets handcuff the officers even more, just in case Jose is sensitive about his illegal status. Clearly David you have axes to grind against the unions but here is a novel idea, if the body feels strongly about something in opposition to management then maybe the body is right. It isn’t always about crybabies crying fowl. In the end, who cares if you disagree with Randy or not, he runs a tight ship and I respect him for standing his ground.

Brilliant or Bozo? 0 0

By: David Esrati

David Esrati — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 21:37:31 +0000

@Judy- giving your name- sure, producing ID ok- but, what kind of ID? If I produce a WSU ID that has my name on it- that’s enough.

Brilliant or Bozo? 0 0

By: Judy

Judy — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 21:32:49 +0000

Once again…(heavy sigh)

[IP] When police ask your name, you must give it, Supreme Court says

Brilliant or Bozo? 0 0

By: David Esrati

David Esrati — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:52:42 +0000

@Shortwest As far as I know, unless we’ve committed a crime, or are suspected of committing a crime, we can’t be forced to produce ID. That’s not the issue here- the issue is immigration status- which can be murky. Green cards, visas, here on vacation, this isn’t stuff that’s needed to deal with local crime. The Dayton Police Department is not the INS. However, if a crime is committed, an arrest is made- then- let the feds determine status as illegal or legal. That’s the point of Biehl’s rule.

Brilliant or Bozo? 0 0

By: Shortwest Rick

Shortwest Rick — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 05:36:42 +0000

that officers have no right to question immigration status, and should be punished for doing so

I disagree David, police officers need to be able gather all relevant information while investigating a reported crime, all the DOJ said is they can’t detain a person for being undocumented. This is a two way street, otherwise any one of us could be handcuffed in Kroger’s parking lot for simply not being able to produce a driver’s license or birth certificate on the spot. There have been cases of thieves praying on illegals, if the police are not allowed to ask certain questions it hinders them from establishing motive and patterns. Leaving the police officer to guess at why his victim was robbed would institutionalize profiling. Democracy is a double edged sword.

Brilliant or Bozo? 0 0

By: jstults

jstults — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 05:03:49 +0000

Drexel Dave:

I’m just telling you how it really does work…your characterization of the process is flawed.

Well, when I saw things from the other side dealing with recalcitrant union reps, my impression was not nearly as rosy as yours. The emphasis was always on uninspired rule following, lose-lose style compromise (this on both sides), and certainly not bottom-line ass kicking (I’ll admit my experience is limited, maybe I just haven’t been around long enough to see a great union impress me).

To characterize one elected representative from the union as a “bureaucracy” is quite a leap in logic and reality.

Sorry, all of the unions I’m familiar with have had substantial ’support structure’; they weren’t just one guy operating out of a coffee shop. Does he do all the collective bargaining himself? Sounds like he could give those appraisers we heard about in those other articles a run for their money (I kid, I kid, the Lt mentioned in the article does seem like he’s doing the job his fellows elected him for).

There’s no rule that says either side has to be adversarial. Great bosses are the champion of their labor. You can have rock-solid union-management relations and still have the two butt heads at times.

Think about what you are saying. If things are so ‘rock-solid’ and the boss is a champ, why is the union putting on the brakes by butting heads?! It isn’t contributing value for the customer, so isn’t it just wasted effort? In the private sector rent seeking by unions chases away capital (for a great example of foolish ‘butting heads’ see the saga of Boeing, their machinists union and the relocation of 787 production lines), in the public sector it erodes tax bases because people and businesses move on to locales with less overhead. That’s not to say leadership can’t do stupid stuff to squander opportunities too, but the collective bargaining process tends to be adversarial and non-agile by it’s nature. Maybe this is a good news story that the media covers poorly and you know of some great counter-examples to the union-as-millstone stereotype?

Sometimes innovation is stupid.

Ha, ha! Well played sir.

Brilliant or Bozo? 0 0

By: Drexel Dave Sparks

Drexel Dave Sparks — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 03:48:35 +0000

I’m just telling you how it really does work, and not a whole lot of people in the public infospace seem to have a clue about how union workplaces actually work. Lots of urban myth, but not much reality.
No, they are not two bureaucracies. The police department itself is a bureaucracy (part of the larger city bureaucracy). The Dayton City Police Department is the management team that includes the department leadership, supervisors, etc…and the union membership (via their elected representatives). To characterize one elected representative from the union as a “bureaucracy” is quite a leap in logic and reality. He’s just the guy who speaks for and defends if needed the rights of the membership of his local.
Union workplaces can and have been some of the most productive. The police department or other public services are different beasts than a private employer.
There’s no rule that says either side has to be adversarial. Great bosses are the champion of their labor. You can have rock-solid union-management relations and still have the two butt heads at times. It’s not always a bad thing either. Sometimes it leads to problems being solved, and gasp, innovation. Your characterization of the process is flawed.
And trust me, there is innovation in every job and human task on Earth. Sometimes innovation is stupid. Sometimes it is fantastic. It’s not good in and of itself.
Take care.

Brilliant or Bozo? 0 0

By: jstults

jstults — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 03:15:26 +0000

Drexel Dave:

The union and its elected representation is 50 percent of the management team.

To put it another way, the taxpayer is footing a bill for twice as much overhead as needed.

The two parties should work together on any policies. All work rules by law in a union workplace must be NEGOTIATED rules for them to have any legal teeth. Any other practices not covered by the negotiated contract rules, fall upon what was the past practice used. Until a new practice or rule is contractually negotiated, the past practice of the workplace shall remain in place.

And people wonder why manufacturing is fleeing to right-to-work states (if it stays state-side at all). Getting two adversarial bureaucracies to agree on business practices, with the default being ‘do it the way we’ve always done it’, is not exactly a recipe for agile innovation in a competitive marketplace. Driving buses and policing beats may not require any innovation, but Dayton is in a competition and wouldn’t it be nice if innovations in those areas (and others) made Dayton more desirable to businesses and residents?

Brilliant or Bozo? 0 0

By: Drexel Dave Sparks

Drexel Dave Sparks — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 02:20:45 +0000

The union and its elected representation is 50 percent of the management team. That nobody realizes this seems to reveal the bigger problem of why so many have no understanding why so many things go wrong. That includes management structures as well.
When I served as V.P. of the bus driver’s union, it was amazing to me how little the supervisory staff knew of labor law, or even the contract with the union, especially the vaguely written verbiage. A good union president should have a broad knowledge of labor law, contract law, state and local law…and not be afraid to butt heads with management when management is in violation of any of those.
The way it SHOULDN’T work is for a department director to just issue edicts, and then the only course of action for the union to take is the grievance process, which can drag on, and on…That makes for an unproductive unionized workplace.
The two parties should work together on any policies. All work rules by law in a union workplace must be NEGOTIATED rules for them to have any legal teeth. Any other practices not covered by the negotiated contract rules, fall upon what was the past practice used. Until a new practice or rule is contractually negotiated, the past practice of the workplace shall remain in place.
I could go on. I had so much fun as a union rep, I decided to go back and finish school, and go to law school.
Who you gonna call? Call the pit bull!

Brilliant or Bozo? 0 0

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 02:00:41 +0000

>David, respectfully, you’re full of shit.

Favorite blog quote ever!

Brilliant or Bozo? 0 0

By: Will Brooks

Will Brooks — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:26:51 +0000

I hope I didn’t hijack things too badly. I only wanted to cite the 10th amendment as an argument for Biehl not needing to be worried about “circumventing federal law officers.” Personally, I think not asking for immigration status is a good in the case of Dayton. Let local law enforcement work with INS some other way besides one that discourages people from reporting crimes.

Brilliant or Bozo? 0 0

By: jstults

jstults — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:17:08 +0000

Jeff:

Will, you must be from the South.

Or maybe Utah, serious ‘nullification’ is cause for the cavalry to ride out and stomp you:

The forces selected for the expedition to Utah consisted of the Second Dragoons, then stationed at Fort Leavenworth in view of possible trouble in Kansas; the Fifth Infantry, stationed at that time in Florida; the Tenth Infantry, then in the forts in Minnesota; and Phelps’s Battery of the Fourth Artillery, that had distinguished itself at Buena Vista–a total of about fifteen hundred men.

Just teasing, nullification is a dangerous path though. All sorts of less than reputable folks have used it as an excuse to be scofflaws.

Brilliant or Bozo? 0 0

By: Will Brooks

Will Brooks — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:08:22 +0000

Ya, Virginia originally. Here’s a link from Ohio where nullification is being utilized.
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=128_HB_315

I brought it up in this context because the fellow from the Police Union says Biehl is circumventing federal law officers by making a move that could help lower crime in our community. What Biehl is doing is a far cry from nullification. I was making the point that States are not bound to follow the Fed’s lead and States can constitutionally nullify the federal government when fed is seeking un-constitutional measures be imposed on the States.

Brilliant or Bozo? 0 0