I thought that unions might (try to) block administrative punishments, and oppose firing someone, but a crime is a crime and seperate from that (and should be investigated independently). Then again I can also see them opposing independent investigations.
You specifically mention public sector unions though - yet somehow I doubt the situation is better in private prisons (you do have those, right?).
Yes, with contracts that they must always have a certain percentage of filled cells. Another reason why the war of drugs won't die.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Yes, many public sector unions make it difficult-to-impossible to investigate criminal activity and make it contractually difficult-to-impossible to fire someone, even for serious offenses.Just to clarify: is anyone actually implying that a prison worker union has created a contract that makes union members immune to prosecution--or impossible to investigate--for committing actual crimes? The hell?
This is why some of us have such a problem with government unions. What did you think our problem was?
You are correct, private prisons suffer from terrible problems as well. And the incentives are often totally backwards in the private prisons. Though a lot of that is because of our failing "war on drugs".
How do you catch the crime in the first place, Khend? How do you gather sufficient information to successfully prosecute in an area where the people you're trying to prosecute have (and genuinely need) almost total control of the territory, the population and in large part the information? You get it by regulatory authority mitigating that control but that comes down to political power and that's where the California Correctional Officer's Association comes into play (I won't dismiss the direct intimidation or influence on law enforcement and the criminal justice system like you do but I will grant that those can be pushed through)
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
They already catch the guys. They just don't prosecute.
I'm pretty sure your laws already have quite a lot of tools - people not talking? Contempt of court. Lying? Perjury. And so on.
This problem comes from the fact that there is no serious prosecution. You allowed them their "place of power". That's not something you can fix with a reform.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Yeah, they don't prosecute. Because you need a case you at least think has a shot at being proved beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury. "Catching" someone and legally proving they're guilty are two different concepts.
Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 12-17-2012 at 08:37 PM.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Have the unions signed binding contracts with the courts that grant their members such immunity from investigation? Have they signed contracts preventing courts from sentencing rapist prison guards to prison?
Come on man. Here's how it is: your DAs etc don't really give a rat's ass about the rights of criminals eg. prisoners. That is a fact that has been demonstrated time and time again eg. through stories posted right here on this forum. I won't deny that the prison workers' union in CA may have too much political power, but half of their freedom to violate the rights of prisoners comes from the fact that no-one really cares about the rights of prisoners, esp. not those who are supposed to uphold/enforce your laws. They don't even care enough to improve the situation wrt proving guilt.
It is naïve in the extreme to believe that everything would be hunky dory if only you could fire corrupt prison workers (aka. almost all of them).
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Oh absolutely. The Correctional Officer's Association has the broadest political draw of any union in the state. Even the various police officer unions don't come close. They get the labor solidarity types, they get the law and order types, they don't piss voters off by individuals making legitimate or illegitimate use of their power because it's all "out of sight, out of mind," etc. And it doesn't help that the District Attorneys (i.e. the heads of every prosecutorial office) are elected positions rather than civil service positions, something I can't stand. That does make this one situation where I do kinda agree with Dread about public sector unions though because if you can't attract the law and order voters who also happen to be very mindful of that prison-guard endorsement, then you're not going to win the DA position. The union has enormous influence over the instruments that we'd look at to rein it in.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
And a prisoner who can be proven to be pregnant from a warden isn't a watertight case? What else do you need?
And how in the seven hells haven't the DAs been prosecuted for this already?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
A prisoner pregnant by a warden warrants disciplinary action for sure; criminal prosecution? Not so certain. Also, let's not forget that the people bringing charges also happen to be people who have an interest in undermining the authority of the people they bring complaints about.
Congratulations America
You're not incorrect that people have less compassion for prisoners. But you're severely underestimating the managerial barriers that government unions put in place. I didn't want to go down this road, but the reality is that many state institutions are effectively run by the unions. There is an organized us vs. them mentality between the employees and their employers (IE the state) that often inhibits investigations, discipline and reform.
there is nearly always a us vs them mentality. one of the many reasons people hate middle management. you've got to be an idiot to think that's a union only thing, or caused by unions.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Over here it's certainly a criminal act - it's a variant of "sexual abuse of wards" called "sexual abuse of prisoners" and calls for a minimal sentence of 3 months up to 5 years.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Consentual sex is explicitly ranked as abuse ?
Congratulations America
It has been consistently ruled that there can be no consensus between wards and wardens due to the inequality of power in their relationship, i.e. it's not an agreement between equals. Also it prevents the usual "but she made the first move" argument by wardens.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Statutory rape then, well it makes the rules very clear.
Congratulations America
It certainly has that ring to it - that's why what would be called "statutory rape" is §174, whereas the "sexual abuse of wards is §174a.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Fuzzy outlined CA's barriers, including elected DAs as well as public unions. But not every state is run like CA, particularly jails and prisons, and not all public unions have the same degree of influence.
Do you have credible sources or published studies showing non-union correctional officers, or privately operated jails/prisons have lower rates of (reported or prosecuted) prisoner rapes? Or that any other type of prisoner abuse is less when public unions aren't involved?
I never understood the idea held by teachers and civil servants that their jobs are somehow so unique that they can't have a normal employer/manager/employee relationship like the rest of the working world.
Aren't you the one who argues that their jobs are unique enough that it should be illegal for them to form unions?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
